Page 23 of 26 FirstFirst ... 132122232425 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 259

Thread: S.F. threatens parking app 'MonkeyParking' with lawsuit

  1. #221
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,076

    Re: S.F. threatens parking app 'MonkeyParking' with lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahlevah View Post
    Through more than two hundred posts, no one has explained to me the legal basis that allows San Francisco to apply a local ordinance to a foreign-based corporation that has no physical presence in San Francisco.
    SCOTUS has ruled that the standard of proof is that the foreign company needs to have clear links the state where the lawsuit is brought. As the company is providing a service entirely dependent on San Francisco public parking, the ties are more than obvious. Physical presence is irrelevant.

    Supreme Court Limits Scope For Suing Foreign Companies In The US - Corporate/Commercial Law - United States

    Foreign companies doing business in the US are often concerned about getting sued before a US court, even in situations where there is no apparent connection to the US. In its recent Daimler AG v Bauman et al. ruling, the Supreme Court seems to have placed some limits on this broad jurisdiction by ruling that a foreign company cannot automatically be sued in a State court if it has no clear links with that State.
    What are the standards for connections?

    Extending this logic, a majority of the Court ruled that an outof-state association selling mail order insurance had developed sufficient contacts and ties with Virginia residents so that the State could institute enforcement proceedings under its Blue Sky Law by forwarding notice to the company by registered mail, notwithstanding that the Association solicited business in Virginia solely through recommendations of existing members and was represented therein by no agents whatsoever.848
    Acknowledging that the connection of the company with California was tenuous— it had no office or agents in the State and no evidence had been presented that it had solicited anyone other than the insured for business—the Court sustained jurisdiction on the basis that the suit was on a contract which had a substantial connection with California. "The contract was delivered in California, the premiums were mailed there and the insured was a resident of that State when he died. It cannot be denied that California has a manifest interest in providing effective means of redress for its residents when their insurers refuse to pay claims."851
    he State
    On what basis can San Francisco regulate foreign commercial activity on the Internet?
    Suing Out-of-State (Foreign) Corporations :: Fourteenth Amendment--Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection :: US Constitution :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

    However minimal the burden of defending in a foreign tribunal, a defendant may not be called upon to do so unless he has the 'minimum contacts' with that State that are a prerequisite to its exercise of power over him.
    Here are the clear contacts:

    1. San Francisco residents need to download it for it to work.
    2. The app needs to have a portal to San Francisco (it does).
    3. What is being exchanged for money is parking space in San Francisco.

    Learn the law. Quit trying to circumvent it.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  2. #222
    Sage

    Ahlevah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Flyoverland
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,925

    Re: S.F. threatens parking app 'MonkeyParking' with lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Learn the law. Quit trying to circumvent it.
    Learn the law? Even the lawyers donít know it. Witness the first sentence of your link:

    A curious aspect of American law is that a corporation has no legal existence outside the boundaries of the State chartering it.835 Thus, the basis for state court jurisdiction over an out-of-state ("foreign") corporation has been even more uncertain than that with respect to individuals.

    Suing Out-of-State (Foreign) Corporations :: Fourteenth Amendment--Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection :: US Constitution :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia
    Now, consider that San Francisco is a municipality and not a state. We also have to consider the type of business at hand, laws concerning electronic commerce generally and the Internet specifically, as well as treaties regarding international trade and commerce. I mean, can you imagine the mess if it were determined that every city on the planet could regulate internet activity within its borders?

    So I don't think the law concerning companies that conduct their business principally or entirely over the Internet, with no physical presence or agents located within the state, is as set in concrete as you imply. This is an evolving area of the law. Otherwise, what is the issue with states collecting sales taxes from companies like Amazon.com? California residents were clearly targeted for sales, the merchandise was delivered there, and yet California was frustrated in its attempts to collect taxes until Amazon decided that it wanted to establish fulfillment centers in the state to speed up delivery, thus establishing a physical presence in the state. It then negotiated an agreement to remit sales taxes. But until that moment, California couldn't do squat. Even today, Amazon does not charge sales tax for merchandise I buy from its website. I'm asked to add a "use tax" amount on my annual income tax return while Amazon flips it the bird. As of today, Amazon.com still collects sales taxes in only twenty-one states (Amazon.com Help: About Sales Tax on Items Sold by Amazon.com).
    Нава́льный 2018

  3. #223
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,459
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: S.F. threatens parking app 'MonkeyParking' with lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahlevah View Post
    Did you read the part where I found a free spot near the Maritime Museum? These aren't the only free spots in the city's, you know.

    https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8061...ZA!2e0!6m1!1e1

    But the point is there are no conditions placed on when I can leave, as long as I'm within the allowed window. So it's really no one else's business about WHEN I leave the spot. If I want to wait to give it to a hot blonde, I can do that, right? Not saying I would, but I'm well within my rights to do that, am I not?
    You still can't prevent me from physically preventing you from delivering, and your "customers" are unlikely to wait around to see which of us wins the battle of wills or get mixed up in some confrontation. Prolly get you "blacklisted" or whatever bad rating system the app uses.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  4. #224
    Sage

    Ahlevah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Flyoverland
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,925

    Re: S.F. threatens parking app 'MonkeyParking' with lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by What if...? View Post
    You still can't prevent me from physically preventing you from delivering, and your "customers" are unlikely to wait around to see which of us wins the battle of wills or get mixed up in some confrontation. Prolly get you "blacklisted" or whatever bad rating system the app uses.
    Didn't we already have this discussion? You're getting boring.
    Нава́льный 2018

  5. #225
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,459
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: S.F. threatens parking app 'MonkeyParking' with lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahlevah View Post
    Didn't we already have this discussion? You're getting boring.
    Your response was hoping I got assaulted and arrested for simply not allowing you to sell something you have no more right to than I do.

    The conflicts this will engender will provide any city with an "interest" in the issue as its the city's cops that will be breaking up fights and dealing with other forms of conflict that are sure to arise.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  6. #226
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,076

    Re: S.F. threatens parking app 'MonkeyParking' with lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahlevah View Post
    the first sentence of your link:
    Yes, if you actually read the entire article though, SCOTUS has set the guidelines for when a company can't and can be sued. That's the important thing to keep in mind here. Reading articles instead of the parts which satisfy your general ignorance of the issue.

    Now, consider that San Francisco is a municipality and not a state.
    Irrelevant, the app is doing business within the boundaries of city limits. Not outside. Do you understand how these things work?

    We also have to consider the type of business at hand <snip>
    Arguments from ignorance aren't my thing. You can consider them all you want. When you have anything that amounts to more than "Oh the humanity!" you are welcome to come back.

    So I don't think
    We have already established you're not so good at that. See the fact that you think "advertising" refers to setting up a billboard or sitting with a lawn chair holding a sign.

    <snip> is as set in concrete as you imply.
    I'm not implying anything. A company has to have clear ties to the state. The fact that there are users of the app within the city and what is being trades is city property, allows for it to be sued. I wish you actually knew what you were talking about. In April Columbus sued Lyft:

    City sues to halt app-based car service Lyft | The Columbus Dispatch

    The city has filed a lawsuit that seeks to bar the app-based car service UberX from operating in Columbus.

    In addition to the lawsuit, which was filed in Franklin County Municipal Court yesterday, the city attorneyís office is asking for a temporary restraining order that would prevent UberX from operating until a judge can decide whether to grant a permanent order.
    Lyft is located in San Francisco, no physical presence in Columbus.

    Lyft is a privately held, San FranciscoĖbased transportation network company whose mobile-phone application facilitates peer-to-peer ridesharing by enabling passengers who need a ride to request one from drivers who have a car.
    In January, San Francisco sued MeetMe.

    San Francisco sues MeetMe app, saying it enables stalkers to track teens - San Jose Mercury News

    The website MeetMe.com is operated by MeetMe Inc., based in New Hope, Penn., and is aimed at enabling users to meet new friends. According to company figures cited by the lawsuit, MeetMe has more than 40 million users, of whom about 25 percent are under 18.

    Company chief executive officer Geoff Cook declined to comment on the lawsuit, but issued a statement saying, "We care deeply about the safety of all of MeetMe's users.
    MeetMe is based in Pennsylvania, no physical presence in San Francisco.

    This is an evolving area of the law. <snip>
    Entirely different matter and I wish you actually were honest enough to post what happened. California had already established that Amazon had links to the state through its affiliates even without a physical presence.

    Amazon tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The affiliate provision was included to ensure that only sellers with a California nexus are taxed, as required by federal law.[7] "This legislation will close the current loophole in tax law which has allowed out-of-state companies to avoid collecting California sales and use tax," stated Skinner.
    In short, California would tax Amazon through its affiliates and force it to collect sales taxes. Do you get that? The fact that Amazon was doing business through affiliates in California was enough for it to fall under jurisdiction of California's tax and regulation laws. Amazon retaliated by threatening to essentially cut links with any affiliates so that it would no longer be under the jurisdiction of the state and wouldn't have to collect taxes:

    In 2011, Amazon threatened to terminate roughly 10,000 of its affiliates located in California if legislation pending in the state legislature to deem such affiliates as constituting a nexus that requires the collection of sales tax is passed. California affiliates would no longer receive commissions on referrals to Amazon.
    In the end Amazon actually gave in to the states demands and realized that cutting ties with the state wasn't working in its favors because not only would it still have to collect taxes in the state, it would lose affiliates within the state too.

    It then negotiated an agreement to remit sales taxes. But until that moment, California couldn't do squat.
    This is not only wrong, it's false. The negotiations came as a result of California trying to pass AB153.

    Amazon does not charge sales tax for merchandise I buy from its website.
    Now you're just lying:

    Free ride is over -- Amazon.com collecting California sales tax - Los Angeles Times

    Amazon.com, the world's biggest Internet retailer, began collecting sales taxes on purchases made by Golden State shoppers beginning at 12:01 a.m. The tax ranges from 7.25% to 9.75%, depending on where a buyer is located. Chatter on Twitter on Saturday morning showed mixed consumer reaction. "It was a good ride," tweeted Christopher Ferebee, who identified himself as a literary agent and attorney in Southern California.
    3 Ways To Still Avoid Sales Tax Online - Forbes

    Amazon collects tax in 20 states: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.
    Please stop making things up?

    I'm asked to add a "use tax" amount on my annual income tax return while Amazon flips it the bird. As of today, Amazon.com still collects sales taxes in only twenty-one states (Amazon.com Help: About Sales Tax on Items Sold by Amazon.com).
    This doesn't come as a result of not having a physical presence but as a result of states not really dealing with e-commerce. However, your physical presence argument is demonstratively false. It's pretty much set in stone that not only can states have jurisdiction over companies doing business within the state even if the business is entirely based online:

    In May 2011 Gov. Dannel P. Malloy signed legislation that requires online retailers to collect sales tax if they have Connecticut-based affiliates. The legislation aims to raise $9.4 million. Amazon said Connecticutís legislation violates Quill Corporation v. North Dakota and immediately moved to terminate its affiliate relationships in Connecticut. Amazon accused traditional retailers such as Wal-Mart of being behind Connecticut's new law.[5]
    Illinois passed legislation to tax online sales made to consumers located in the state. In March 2011 Gov. Pat Quinn signed the "Main Street Fairness Act," which targets online retailers with Illinois affiliates.
    In 2008, New York State passed a law that would force online retailers to collect sales taxes on shipments to state residents.
    And before you go on about how those are different because Amazon has associates in the state:

    Due to state laws, Amazon does not allow North Carolina residents to participate in the Amazon Affiliates program.[31] Starting February 1st, 2014, Amazon will begin collecting NC State sales tax on orders. [32]
    Amazon has NO physical presence of any sort in the last state. It has no affiliates. it still must collect sales taxes.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  7. #227
    Sage

    Ahlevah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Flyoverland
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,925

    Re: S.F. threatens parking app 'MonkeyParking' with lawsuit

    I already suspected you didn't have a grasp on the facts with your argument that an ordinance regulating the posting of signs on public property applies to an Internet app, but now I'm certain of it. What, specifically, am I lying about? Once again, did you bother reading your own link? It just confirms what I wrote:

    After fighting legislative efforts to force it to collect sales taxes, Amazon last year struck a deal with Gov. Jerry Brown. The company promised to open two 1-million-square-foot distribution centers in Northern and Southern California and to start charging sales tax as of Saturday.

    Free ride is over -- Amazon.com collecting California sales tax - Los Angeles Times
    Then there's this gem:

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Please stop making things up?
    You missed Florida, chief. Your Forbes article is dated March 4th while Amazon didnít start collecting the tax until May 1st. If youíre going to hurl insults while avoiding stepping on your own crank then at least make sure you get your facts straight first.
    Last edited by Ahlevah; 07-08-14 at 07:40 PM.
    Нава́льный 2018

  8. #228
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,076

    Re: S.F. threatens parking app 'MonkeyParking' with lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahlevah View Post
    I already suspected you didn't have a grasp on the facts with your argument that an ordinance regulating the posting of signs on public property applies to an Internet app, but now I'm certain of it.
    Not really, you interpreted it that way even though you ignored that advertisement upon a property is not dependent on your personal interpretation of the words advertisement, upon and property. They are dependent on whether the advertisement references the property.

    What, specifically, am I lying about?
    The fact that Amazon isn't collecting a sales tax on your orders and you haven't paid sales taxes.

    Once again, did you bother reading your own link? It just confirms what I wrote: Then there's this gem:
    Not really as you failed to actually read any information which contradicts your statements. Amazon has no presence in North Carolina and YET it is still subject to its tax and regulation laws. Again, the state/city must argue that the company is dealing and operating within its borders.

    1. MonkeyApp provides a service that simply doesn't function without the particular city's public property. In this case, the city in question is SF. That debunks your claim that the city has no right to sue the app makers. Various cities have already demonstrated that ties to the cities includes creating programs with a physical presence elsewhere but still using the city's infrastructure to creat profit.

    2. There have been already a myriad of cases where cities have sued app-makers operating outside of their boundaries AND WON even if the app makers have no physical presence in the state/city. That debunks the claim that the city can't sue MonkeyParking.

    3. The city has a legitimate interest in regulating any commerce that directly involves its public property. That also debunks your assertion that the city has no jurisdiction here.

    4. The app is partly dependent on placing an advertisement regarding the pay for use of public property. That violates not only California/SF laws on advertisements regarding public property it also violates laws regarding the use of public property. You don't have a right to hold a parking spot hostage until someone pays you for it. You also don't have a right to profit from creating user fees on public property.

    5. The app doesn't function/make money if the parking spot is not given to the user. That makes the information irrelevant to the transaction as it facilitates the parties reaching an agreement. It's not what is being traded.

    Read more at Amazon sues N.C. over customer data :: WRAL.com

    Because Amazon has no offices or warehouses in North Carolina, the company isn't required to collect the customary sales tax on shipments. North Carolina requests voluntary compliance from taxpayers, asking them to include a "consumer use tax" on their individual income tax returns for anything purchased or received through the mail.
    Soon after:

    Last year, North Carolina passed a law that required out-of-sate retailers to collect sales tax in the state if they have marketing affiliates within the state. Amazon responded by ending its affiliate program in North Carolina and currently doesn't collect sales tax in the state.
    Read more at Amazon sues N.C. over customer data :: WRAL.com
    Result:

    RALEIGH Amazon.com will begin collecting sales tax in North Carolina beginning Feb. 1, a company official confirmed Monday.

    The move will make North Carolina the 20th state in which the online retailer collects sales tax, according to Amazon’s website. It’s unclear why Amazon decided to make the change now. A spokesman didn’t respond to questions about the timing of the move and whether the Seattle-based company would begin collecting sales tax in other states besides North Carolina on Feb. 1.

    Read more here: Amazon to begin collecting sales tax in NC on Feb. 1 | CharlotteObserver.com
    Amazon still has no offices and its affiliates program is still closed. In short, it has no physical presence of any sort in the state and still must abide by state regulation. That makes your statement about physical presence in the state redundant and irrelevant.

    Your Forbes article is dated is March 4th while Amazon didn’t start collecting the tax until May 1st. You missed Florida, chief.
    If you're buying goods in Florida and California, Amazon is collecting a sales tax. Unless you're going back in time to anywhere before May 1st somewhere in Florida to buy stuff from their website, they've been collecting a tax for over 2 months. So your claim that they haven't is false. Now, I'm not even sure why you'd state they haven't been collecting it but they clearly have. We're in July, son.

    If you’re going to hurl insults while avoiding stepping on your own crank then at least make sure you get your facts straight first.
    Hurling insults? I'm sorry you're a shill for this company and have regurgitated every talking point of its owners:

    MonkeyParking chief vows to fight San Francisco with every banana in its arsenal | VentureBeat | Mobile | by Richard Byrne Reilly

    The cease and desist letter that we received from the City of San Francisco is premised on a fundamentally wrong assumption: that our application purports to allow users “to buy and sell” parking spaces. That is not the case.

    The shared economy trades on information, not on goods or services or other commodities. We are very surprised that the City of San Francisco, which prides itself of being a liberal and tolerating city, does not see that their cease and desist letter is an open violation of free speech, contrary to the First Amendment of the US Constitution (“I have the right to tell people if I am about to leave a parking spot and they have the right to pay me for such information”).

    We are consulting with legal counsel as we speak but we are confident that we would prevail any such legal challenge against our service.
    How much are you getting paid to advertise this company? You have word for word regurgitated the defense made by the company. From this being a violation of the 1st amendment, to this not being the sale of parking spaces to it being based on the trading of information. So, how much are you getting paid?
    Last edited by Hatuey; 07-08-14 at 08:24 PM.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  9. #229
    Whoa, daddy!
    MadLib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,225

    Re: S.F. threatens parking app 'MonkeyParking' with lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahlevah View Post
    Repeating the same falsities over and over doesn't make them true. Let me use an example to illustrate how your caboose has jumped the rails.

    Letís assume that Iím a collector of rare Tiffany lamps and I place an advertisement in a collectors' journal concerning paying a 10% finderís fee to anyone who provides me with information that leads to the successful purchase of a genuine Tiffany lamp.

    I receive contact from someone in Cincinnati who claims to have a lead on a lamp. So I fly there and agree to meet with this person. He takes me to an antiques store where, lo and behold, I spy what appears to be just such a lamp. I then confirm that my payment of the fee, once I negotiate the purchase, is dependent upon me verifying the authenticity of the lamp. He agrees. So I purchase the lamp, but then, after I have it examined by an expert, I discover that it is a clever copy and I'm now the proud owner of a fake Tiffany lamp. So, in accordance with the terms I originally set forth to my contact, I refuse to pay the fee and my "seller" grudgingly accepts this news.

    The first question is what was my contact selling me? A lamp? No. He didn't own it. He wasnít selling me any object, public or private. He was selling me a lead on a lamp. Did he commit fraud when I found out the lamp was fake? No, he did not, because he had no knowledge that the lamp was fake and, in any case, he wouldnít be paid until I was satisfied with the purchase. Was his contact with me an advertisement for the sale of the lamp? No, it was not, since, as I said, you canít sell what you do not own. My seller was selling information, and made no representation that he owned the lamp. He certainly didnít place a sign on it in the store representing that he was selling it, so he did not run afoul of any law prohibiting such conduct. And if someone else had wanted to buy it I donít see how he could have prevented them.

    So, as you can see, your argument has more holes in it than a slice of Swiss cheese. Thanks for playing? Youíre welcome. Please come again.
    It's clearly not just a finder's fee. A more accurate analogy would be one in which your hypothetical seller prevents other people from purchasing the lamp (needless to say, it's not his) until you get there. No matter how you look at it, use of the parking spot is what's being sold, not information on its location.
    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Hah. If someone put me in their sig, I'd never know. I have sigs off.

  10. #230
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,076

    Re: S.F. threatens parking app 'MonkeyParking' with lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by MadLib View Post
    It's clearly not just a finder's fee. A more accurate analogy would be one in which your hypothetical seller prevents other people from purchasing the lamp (needless to say, it's not his) until you get there. No matter how you look at it, use of the parking spot is what's being sold, not information on its location.
    He's been regurgitating the company's defense for 20 pages. What he doesn't realize is that the advertisement could say

    Get your freshly cut trees at Bradley Park.

    No price. When you get there, you'd still be paying for the trees. Not the information on where to get them. That's just as illegal as this. You have no right to set up a business consisting on the trade and purchase of public property.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

Page 23 of 26 FirstFirst ... 132122232425 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •